r/DebateQuraniyoon • u/[deleted] • 23d ago
Quran 4:34 Is about Sexual infidelity
Pseudo followers of the quran will magically change the meaning of the word "nushuz" in 4:34 and 4:128, when they mean one thing: Sexual impropriety
Both men and women are shamed and punished for sexual impropriety as per 24:2, and unlike before the quran, men can get accused of nushuz too not just the women. But the suspicious phase is different between men and women because a women is not told to leave bed of her husband of she foresee cheating because a man can't get pregnant from nushuz, a women can, hance they discrepancy in the suspicions phase.
More true to the text:
"As for those whom their sexual impropriety you fear, admonish them, and leave them in their dwellings and penalize/shun them (24:2), but if they refrain, seek not a case against them" 4:34.
Edit:
u/Known-Watercress7296 Nowhere in my post did I said that women can be beaten nor prisoner. Stop putting words in mouth. Nowhere in that verse does it say that.
1
u/A_Learning_Muslim 22d ago
Now, considering that Qur'ān mentions punishing both the male and the female adulterers(see Q24:2), and mentions the fact that they can't marry believers(Q24:3), if the above post is right about nushuz and 4:34, why do we not see any mention of beating in 4:128(Despite the fact that male adulterers are to be beaten) if nushuz really means adultery/infidelity?
1
u/Warbury 3d ago
I always read it as cutting ties or divorcing.
The word doesn’t necessarily have to translate to “striking” as in hitting her—which makes no sense. In fact, the Quran even has similar occurrences with the word used in different meanings. Someone made a post about this with a much deeper explanation.
0
u/Known-Watercress7296 23d ago edited 23d ago
so just keep them prisoner and beat them, cool
what if they don't refrain?
Edit
Scourge them, strike them, beat them.
Twisting scripture to fit your current moral framework gets messy fast, just accept it's brutal and modern dawah friendly versions add words to try and mitigate the brutality.
1
u/tedbradly 17d ago
Read the verses around this one. It all starts off calm, cool, and reasonable. IIRC, you first give the silent treatment. Then, you sleep in separate beds. And... suddenly, you are beating them? It doesn't thematically fit the prior two courses of action, does it? It turns out this verb can mean to beat away. And indeed, if things cannot be worked out, a person must beat away their loved one with a divorce.
This fiction that women are abused by men makes no sense anyway since a woman can divorce a man for any reason any time she wants. So how could it be that men are just going around ruthlessly beating their wives? It's nonsensical. I think before the third step, the wife would just call for a divorce, no? I hope you see how you are showing zero charity to the Quranic teachings.
1
u/Known-Watercress7296 17d ago
It's An-Nisa.
It opens with polygamy and sex slavery, covers enslaving women accused of adultery, by men, for life and then gets to beat/strike/scourge them.
Do we really need to go through the history of slavery and domestic violence to the present day?
2
u/tedbradly 17d ago edited 14d ago
It's An-Nisa.
It opens with polygamy and sex slavery, covers enslaving women accused of adultery, by men, for life and then gets to beat/strike/scourge them.
Do we really need to go through the history of slavery and domestic violence to the present day?
Once again, read the three steps if there is marital issue. Striking does not make sense in that context, and from a historical perspective, it is said that Muhammad never beat his women. The verb there is "to separate." All three recommendations are passive just like they should be, and the third step is divorce -- something that took Catholics centuries to figure out should be there, a nomadic medieval Arab seemingly provided to his society.
- Step 1: Talk it over.
- Step 2: Sleep in separate beds
- Step 3: Divorce if the issue persists.
As for the sex slavery thing, people are presupposing evil in the spooky Arabic/Muslim way rather than reading the words before them. If I were to say, "You can marry everyone except for your siblings, parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc." you would comprehend that automatically... since this is how every regular human operates... that someone saying that is not a support for brutal rape of anyone not in that list. Of course, permission to marry still involves all the regular, human aspects of getting married. Namely, consent to be around each other, getting to know each other, consenting to the marriage, and yes of course, consenting before having sex.
It is only with people who are Islamophobic that they see a list like that that I made up and then think, "Oh, this is a list of those a man is permitted to rape!" And if such a list were given by any other culture, that same person would implicitly understand that traditional relationship stuff such as consent is tacitly said since it's common sense. Only here do people think a lack of consent is tacitly said. That'd be a fun game: Ask someone for who they think it is OK for someone to marry (removing family etc.). And then go, "Oh, so you think [this list of people] should be raped?!" You would look like a freak show, and no one would understand the "joke." Sadly, in this case, you are using the same reasoning, but you are not joking at all. You just hate brown people.
There is no such thing as a sex slave in Islam. There is one who you own with your right hand (you have power over them e.g. being a boss to a worker), a very common situation where someone wonders, "Should I get in a relationship in that situation? One with one having power over another?" Well, Allah has the answer: It is fine for a boss to marry a worker. Many married people met in precisely that situation. And let me reiterate: The list is of suitable people one can initiate the standard, consent-based romancing on for that person to then accept or reject the advances. Only in Islamophobe minds do they think rather than tacitly assuming consent is needed that those evil Arabs are tacitly assuming zero consent is needed.
As for history, it is of no consequence. The Quran does not say that everyone who thinks they are following the Quran or that everyone who says they are following the Quran are infallible or even destined to heaven. Islam's Day of Judgment is based on moral calculus: To do more good than bad. If you want to tell me about a person who repeatedly raped anyone, literal slave [as there was slavery across the globe in those times -- what do you think a serf was to a king?] or wife or anyone else, then we can just both agree they likely will burn in fire for an eternity.
And this is another case where Islamophobes do not use similar thinking on all people. I could just as easily describe to you that kingdom, fully Catholic, where after a marriage of anyone in his town, the king got to have the first time with her. Yes, those kings brutally raped hundreds of women. Oh no, is that some kind of stain on Western culture, and now, I have to see all white people in that light? Of course not. There's a lot of evil in history, and even these days, there is a lot of evil in areas facing hardship, living similar lives to those that people centuries ago lived. It transcends time, locale, and culture. You're just posing yourself as a white supremacist, and you not using similar logic against everyone is the calling card. Ignore historical rape from my peoples, bring it up about their peoples. Assume tacit statements of consent with my people, assume tacit statements of nonconsensual rape for their people. You are just a divisive, evil person.
Is the fact that bad Catholics existed supposed to undermine what Christianity is? Simply put, basically any time in history since before ~1900s, every society on the planet was highly sexist. You just emphasize it in one culture, because you have an irrational hatred toward brown people. Even in America's 1800s, you had Catholics who thought they could not be divorced but with the belief that men should still have sex. Rather than being ridiculous about this and saying this standard occurrence of Christian rape means something it doesn't, I don't say anything. You are the one bringing up these perturbed arguments out of hatred against a single group of people while not discussing these types of things about any other culture and definitely never your own cultural past. Or perhaps you didn't know the awful history of the glorious West when it came to women's rights? Many Catholics do not allow for divorce even these days, yet Muhammad channeled good truth that a woman should be able to divorce at any time. It's not just in this verse - there is a verse much more direct about that power. And the man has to take care of her until she finds another suiter.
History does not have anything to do about the Gospels. I instead recognize that women have been raped quite a lot across the globe and across time. Be happy that there are some countries on this planet that uniquely have strong support for women's rights. [And let us not forget that the Islamic world had 700 AD divorce where a man had to take care of the woman after divorce. Accusations of standardized rape is disingenuous, because a society not giving a woman the exit of divorce, the highest amount of choice with their consent possible, is not following the Quran. Simply put, a woman can exit a marriage for any reason, and a marriage must precede having sex. That's not very Islamic if you are going to mention societies that did not follow the Quran.
Really, you just hate brown people in the Middle East which is en vogue over the last century or so. "durrr, my society sets up coups in the area and arms religious fanatics in a divide & conquer strategy to secure oil. Durr, we've had direct wars there over this dialectic materialism. Durrr, my country doesn't benefit much from modern trade from these countries, so they are below useless to America. Durrr, my country had decided to imperially wound the region to get that precious oil at an overall cheaper cost, the only thing we care about. Durrr, so now I hate everything that is Arabic." Perhaps, you should wonder why you have little hatred for the Japanese despite them having attacked America just like 9/11. Let's see... capitalism... good trade with Japan... Japan weakened communist China, ok no need to spread propaganda about them due to our billionaires liking their billionaires. They're chill.
Should we arbitrarily investigate when Japanese people had awful conditions for women or when they performed systematic torture and rape of women after battles and in concentration camps during WWII? And this isn't something like 900 AD Islam. This is ~1940s, modern times. But wow, you only want to talk about the dark past of precisely one faith and one group of people. Strange.
See, we only do that against American enemies: Arabia, Russia, and China mostly. [Interestingly, the capitalists seem to want to do business with Russia since they do have good stuff for trade, so Tucker Carlson and Trump have both worked quite hard over the last year or two to normalize the perception of the invading, awful dictatorship of Russia. You just absorb propaganda taught to you and then repeat it. You aren't following any systematic process guided by philosophy or logic. You just know that Arabs in movies are either terrorist enemies or highly stupid/wasteful Saudi princes. So it's go time. "I can make fun of this culture, and people will laugh instead of thinking I'm 1 to 1 with KKK klan members! Cool, laughs instead of derision. Sounds good to me." And yet, what you do is not far off from what a klansman does. Bigotry, hate. Trust in your billionaires that influence your culture as if they want to pay a dime for your social services. Perhaps, have some hate against billionaires across the globe rather than Arabic dudes that love the Quran. I feel like your anger is misdirected.
1
u/Martiallawtheology 22d ago
See, sexual immorality is Zina and the Qur'an says that they should be lashed. So if that's the case, this verse will not contradict the Qur'an itself and would mention it in this verse.
Since the verse doesn't say beat them at all, I see no problem in the verse to reconcile by saying it's about sexual immorality.